[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mm] sys_semctl gcc 4.1 warning fix
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 03:31:29PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Al Viro <>
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:10:24 +0100
> > But that's the argument in favour of using diff, not shutting the
> > bogus warnings up...
> IMHO, the tree should build with -Werror without exception.
> Once you have that basis, new ones will not show up easily
> and the hard part of the battle has been won.
> Yes, people will post a lot of bogus versions of warning fixes, but
> we're already good at flaming those off already :-)

Alternatively, gcc could get saner. Seriously, some very common patterns
trigger that shit - e.g. function that returns error or 0 and stores
value to *pointer_argument in case of success. It's a clear regression
in 4.x and IMO should be treated as gcc bug.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-05-11 00:48    [W:0.098 / U:6.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site